Feedback for September 1999

Yes, you're right, apples do not come from pears. A cow never gave birth to a goat, etc. And if you think this is how evolution works, no wonder it seems illogical to you. That's because it's a straw man-- you're attacking a false version of your opponent.

I would suggest you browse the FAQs and look at the "Must Read Files" on this website. If these are too technical for you, look at my page for lay people: The Evolution Education Resource Center. How can you know it's false if you can't accurately describe how it works?

Funny, I don't recall seeing any such findings. But I invite the reader to produce a reference or two to such findings on the talk.origins newsgroup.

Wesley

Each article on the Talk.Origins Archive has an e-mail link to the article's author. Simply click on the name at the top of the article to send mail.

It is not the parentage of Jesus that is the contradiction. Who was Jesus' paternal grandfather? The Author of Matthew say that the father of Joseph was Jacob, but the Author of Luke says that the father of Joseph was Heli. Which is it?

In any case, since Joseph was not Jesus' biological father, he is not of the line of David at all. According to either geneaology, ONLY JOSEPH is descended from David. This is just an attempt of the authors of the Gospels to connect Jesus to the Messiah prophecies of the Old Testament. But they fail.

The Author of Matthew does a few more things to connect Jesus to the Old Testament. He tries to establish Jesus as the Messiah forcasted by the Old Testament by taking verses out of their context from the Old Testament (some which are not even prophecies) and contrive them to "fit" a future Jesus. Anyone who reads the context of these Old Testament verses will find that they very obviously have nothing to do with a future Jesus.

(Matthew 1:21-23 NRSV) She will bear a son, and you are to name him Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins." All this took place to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: "Look, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel," which means, "God is with us."

Matthew pulls this verse completely out of context to try to make his Jesus birth story look forecasted by the Old Testament. The "virgin" part is also misquoted. The word in the Isaiah verse means a young woman who was not necessarily a virgin. There is a specific Hebrew word for virgin which is not used here).

Here is the original: (Isa 7:14-16 NRSV) "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel. He shall eat curds and honey by the time he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted."

In this Old Testament verse, Isaiah is trying to give King Ahaz a sign that was to happen during their time period (seven centuries before Jesus) that Judah will not be invaded, this has nothing to do with a future Jesus whatsoever.

One more. Here is another misquote from the Author of Matthew. (Mat 8:16-17 NRSV) "That evening they brought to him many who were possessed with demons; and he cast out the spirits with a word, and cured all who were sick. This was to fulfill what had been spoken through the prophet Isaiah, "He took our infirmities and bore our diseases." "

This is the verse Matthew is misquoting from: (Isa 53:4 NRSV) Surely he has borne our infirmities and carried our diseases; yet we accounted him stricken, struck down by God, and afflicted.

This is the famous Isaiah 53 of which the Christians and the Jewish people have completely different interpretations for obvious reasons. The Christian interpretation is wrong. This is not talking about Jesus.

This "Suffering Servant", whoever it is, it is not Jesus, who had no children, no riches, and was crucified at a young age. The "Suffering Servant" in this chapter is someone who will see his offspring, live a long life, has a soul, and prospers as a reward for his suffering. That doesn't sound like Jesus to me.

So, the question still remains: How is a viable population established from so small a sample? Nowadays, species are placed on the endangered species list if their population drops to several thousands... imagine if every species on the planet were not only endangered, but had only 2 or 12 individuals?

Imagine the single pride of 12 lions, and the pack of 12 hyenas, and the 12 leopards, and the 12 cheetahs, all fed upon the 12 Thompsons Gazelles, the 12 wildebeasts, and the 12 zebras? How long do you think this arrangement would last before all the prey animals would be gone, and then the predators would die out as well? The prey animals do not breed fast enough to avert this situation. And the young are always the weakest and first to fall victim to the predators. The ability of herding animals to survive predation is in their vast numbers. The situation of repopulating the animals from a dozen individual organims is completely unbelievable.

I find it amazing that anyone would believe the nonsense of Noah and his ark.

First of all, belief in God does not commit you to thinking that every event that occurs is planned and executed, or even that any event is, by God. A good many people think that (in line with Aquinas, and more recently Tillich) God's primary creative activity is to sustain the existence of things.

Second, while simple etiologies (origin stories) may now be untenable, this is not so for the rest of religious belief. If a god exists, then science would proceed, and use physicalist assumptions, as much as if no god existed. While we might now abandon the idea of a Homeric sort of god, and literal stories about snakes, gardens and fruit, this does not mean we automatically must reject the whole idea of meaning, god or non-physical realities.

Religion and science do not mix, you are right. Any more than the rules of hockey and descriptions of the load bearing properties of building materials do. They are, in Gould's words, Non-Overlapping Magisteria (although in practice the division gets blurred, and like any adjacent territories, there are border skirmishes).

That said, it is true that most scientists are atheist, or at least agnostic, although I think that your figures are exaggerated. But that may be due to some other reason - socioeconomic causes that predominate certain levels of education, for example. Don't fall prey to a false correlation error. It certainly doesn't underpin or support agnosticism as a metaphysical conviction.

"Belief" is one of those weasel words that can be all things to all thinkers. In philosophy it is sometimes thought to be a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for knowledge. In theology it has several meanings, ranging from confidence to assent to a proposition. The evidentiary nature of belief depends on context, and it can be said that any scientist who thinks theory X is true, at least believes in theory X. That is not to say that theory X is "just a theory" (see the Evolution is a fact and a theory FAQ, as it does have, what theology does not, empirical evidence.

My own feeling as an apathetic agnostic (Greek for "don't know, don't care") is that science is limited because it limits itself to information gleaned from empirical evidence. Information about non-empirical realities is not available. It's a point I wish the design theorists would awaken to: you cannot find empirical evidence of the non-empirical.

Richard Dawkins, and some others, like William Provine, are convinced that the empirical world shows no evidence of design. Others - like Francisco Ayala and Theodosius Dobzhansky, to name two great evolutionists - are convinced it does. In both cases, the inferences rest upon nonscientific (note: not antiscientific) assumptions. Pay your money and take your choice.

Many of the geologists and some of the biologists who have derived these extremely old dates are Christians, so it is pointless for you to argue that this is a plot of an atheistic conspiracy. That being said, should we discard the data that tells us unambiguously that the earth and universe are billions of years old? Why so? Because it steps on the toes of your religious beliefs? Every scientific discovery probably offends at least one of the thousands of religious sects out there, and if we were to ignore scientific findings on that basis, we would have no science at all.

Does questioning whether Johansen might have slipped up within one lecture over a decade ago get anti-evolutionists off the hook on their claims regarding the evidence?

I don't think so. Even if Johansen did slip up in his description during his talk, the proper way to treat the case would have been to ask for clarification, given that his technical articles were at variance with the purported sound bite. And it is clear that the technical literature is the place to find the definitive information on where each specimen was found. At best, the anti-evolutionists could claim that Johansen slipped up once in a lecture, where he did not repeat exactly the same information as was to be found in his articles.

But the anti-evolutionists don't recognize the technical literature and persist in spreading an erroneous tale, even after having been informed of the actual situation. That's what Jim Lippard's article documents, the perseverance of anti-evolutionist claptrap well after its basis has been shown to be wrong.

Wesley

"Why doesn't the archive contain any articles that support creationism?"

The Talk.Origins Archive exists to provide mainstream scientific responses to the frequently asked questions and frequently rebutted assertions that appear in talk.origins. The archive's policy is that readers should be given easy access to alternative views, but those who espouse alternative views should speak for themselves. Hence, the archive supplies links to relevant creationist web sites within many of its articles. It also maintains a frequently updated and extensive list of creationist and catastrophist web sites so that readers may familiarize themselves with anti-evolutionary perspectives on scientific issues.

These opinions are not "narrow-minded." The authors and feedback respondents on this site have come to their opinions after much study on the subject of origins. Some have come to these views after a period as creationists. Some have a more extensive library of creationist books and materials than most creationists do. Above all, we attempt to present the mainstream scientific view of origins as found in the primary scientific literature.

One's mind need not be so open that one's brain falls out.

Thanks for pointing this out. I will notify the author.

Find a copy of Bruce MacFadden's book on horse evolution, Fossil Horses: Systematics, Paleobiology and Evolution of the Family Equidae. Check out Barnes & Noble: Fossil Horses for more information on the book.

You should be able to find it at a variety of university libraries and be able to get it via InterLibrary Loan.

Wesley

These bits of feedback should be about the archive. The exchanges between Lee and Ken have gone far afield from that. This exchange should be taken up in the talk.origins newsgroup or in email.

Wesley

Learning a written language is one thing, inventing it is another. As the myth has it Columbus said, once it's done, anyone can do it again. In fact, written language appears to have been invented only three times - in the middle east, in China, and in central America, and even the Chinese case may have been through diffusion from middle eastern trade.

You raise some very good questions (ones I also have asked), but it is up to the individual believer to decide if the bible represents a history/science textbook, or a spiritual book of moral precepts and metaphorical teachings. The world is approximately four and a half billion years old, and no verse in the bible can change that fact. Because something is written in the bible, contrary to what we find in the physical world, the evidence is not automatically invalidated. Many religious organizations, including the Roman Catholic Church, Lutheran Church, Episcopal Church, Methodist Church, and Presbyterian Church have accepted evolution.

God and redemption can remain the "core issue" for Christians, but why should it be so for the secular population? I also encourage people to investigate the claims of the bible's infallability. You might be surprised. I have read Josh McDowell's material, and was not impressed.

Kent Hovind does not have a $250,000 challenge for anyone who can present empirical evidence for evolutionary theory. Hovind's "challenge" really involves reproducing the Big Bang, abiogenesis, and our earth's history of common descent in the lab. Hovind does not want to put his $250,000 dollars at risk over just getting "empirical evidence for evolutionary theory", of which there is plenty. Further clues that Hovind's challenge is a fake used only for effect is the fact that Hovind will not disclose either the escrow account where this $250,000 should reside, nor the identity of the committee that is supposed to judge entries made against Hovind's challenge. Hovind says that the money and the committee exists, but I have seen no empirical evidence of either.

Dr. Kevin Henke recently talked with Hovind about taking up the $250,000 challenge. Hovind made clear that in order to collect the cash, replication of th Big Bang, abiogenesis, and the history of life on earth would each be necessary. Hovind did agree in principle to a challenge at $1000 to $2000 in which Dr. Henke (a geologist) would have to show that bananas and dogs share a common ancestry. Henke is pursuing this, but insists upon a neutral committee, composed of three theists with advanced degrees in biology who will affirm that they are not young-earth creationists.

Interestingly, Kent Hovind is not willing to risk even $1000 on any of the following challenge topics:

• The Earth is older than 10,000 years.
• "Noah's Flood" cannot explain the Cambrian to Tertiary geologic record.
• Stars evolve.
• Dinosaurs became extinct millions of years ago.
• The Cambrian exists.

It would appear that "Dr. Dino" has retained his sense where it might affect his wallet.

Information theory does not dispute or contradict descent with modification. Evolutionary processes may involve changes in complexity that are increases, decreases, or pretty much the same over time.

The irreducible complexity concept forwarded by Michael Behe has had its fair share of criticism. See Behe's Empty Box.

It seems to me that the impedance-matching transduction system of the mammalian middle ear fits the description of an irreducibly complex system, in that it has several well-matched interacting parts that perform a well-defined function, and the loss of any of the parts eliminates its impedance-matching properties. And yet the fossil record clearly shows the evolutionary origins of each of the middle-ear ossicles. In order to get away from this instance of recorded evolutionary IC, I imagine that "intelligent design creationists" will attempt to claim that the system isn't what they mean by "complex".

Wesley

How do I know creationism has no theory? Just ask a creationist. Ask them this question: "What is the theory of how the Intelligent Designer brought about all the different species on this planet? What were the methods used? How was it done? What is the physical evidence for these conclusions?"

The creationist will promptly hand you his bible (which is tucked under his arm at all times), open on page one-- Genesis Chapter One, verse one. Sorry, but that's Fundamentalism, not science. The evidence can't be in the pages of a book. If there is any real evidence in support of creationism, then the creationists are keeping it a closely guarded secret, because I have never seen it.

Isn't it completely obvious why creationism isn't science, and why it should be kept clear of public school classrooms?

Creationism is not “Creation Science”. Why? Because creationists’ hypotheses do not involve the advancement of creationism. Shouldn’t a scientific theory have some theories? You’d think so. But creationism exclusively concerns itself with the efforts to refute evolution. Creationism should be renamed to “Evolution Refutation”. It simply is not the offering of Biblical Creation as science. All creationism debates and lectures are basically: “Come and hear how we’ve discovered that evolution couldn’t have happened!” Why doesn’t creationism offer evidence in support of their “theory”? Why should they? They don't need proof- their idea of creation is already fully supported in the Book of Genesis. Their own faith is their proof. If you don't believe this, just ask a creationist "What would make you doubt your version of origins? What scientific proof, evidence or observation could change your mind?" The answer (if they even answer at all... the most common reply is a deafening silence) is "Nothing."

Do they try to prove their version of origins to evolutionists? You’d think they would. But they don’t. They realize that they can't, because scientists won't accept the bible as evidence of special creation, like creationists do. What they try to do is knock holes in evolution instead, to make us see the error of our ways, and realize that all scientific attempts at understanding the origin of life are pointless (since no one was there anyway), and in the end there can be only one explanation. This is exactly their tactic. They throw up rebuttals as fast as they can, on every point they can, in order to cause doubt and confusion, even if the “refutations” are wildly invalid. (For example, consider creationist Duane Gish’s remark that for some sections of DNA, human genes are more closely related to frogs than to chimpanzees. After being pressed for several years for evidence of this claim, he was finally cornered in a live debate and admitted that he had none, and he said made the claim out of a misunderstanding. Maybe. But he saw fit to let the statement stand for years, and would have continued with it indefinitely had he not been pressed into recanting it.)

I have even had creationists come out and admit to me that they said something simply to cause public doubt.

Why do they do all this? To keep evolution out of the public school system at all costs. The controversy and confusion have scared school administrators and teachers from touching on the subject.

Creationist so-called "scientific" refutations are based on misconceptions, poor science, scripture, faulty logic, lies, hearsay, fear, and a need to protect their dogma. Creationism is like a wild, cornered animal that has no way out, clawing and snapping at everything it can.

But, in the end, creationism is a good and useful thing. It has provided the motivation for evolutionists to amass a great wealth of knowledge in support of evolution. In the end, creationism has in fact strengthened evolution.

However, the tactics of evolution proponents needs to change. We need to hold the creationists' feet to the fire, and turn the tables, and switch to attack instead of defense. Press them to offer theories, predictions, observations, and verifiable evidence in support of their claims. In PUBLIC and in the MEDIA. That is the way to pull them into the light, so that people may see them, their agenda and their tactics for what they are.

But, isn't creationism science in some sense? Here is just one example of why creationism is NOT SCIENCE, why it should be ABSOLUTELY EXCLUDED from public science classrooms, and why creationism avoids offering testable theories.

The Great Flood is a cornerstone of creationism. It provides creationists with accounts for the geological strata and the presence of fossils. There are MANY problems with accepting this event as a historical occurrence, but I won't address those here. Here is a URL.

But consider this EXAMPLE as a reason for keeping creationism out: There is not enough water on the earth to cover the land as it is specified in the flood hypothesis. Where did all the water come from, and where did it all go?

Here is the REASON that this example disqualifies creationism as science:

The only way to explain the appearance and disappearance of all the water is to invoke the power of God. YOU CAN'T GET AWAY FROM IT. And that's just fine as a matter of faith. But it is not science in any sense. In science, one must be prohibited from making appeals to divine intervention. Miracles are not allowed for science to remain science. Miracles are not testable, verifiable, or falsifiable. They do not conform to any laws of nature, they are not repeatable, or even understandable.

Such a notion is fine for church and home. BUT THAT'S WHERE IT BELONGS. NOT in PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

No creationism with our evolution. No voodoo with our medicine. No astral projection with our aviation. No astrology with our astrophysics. No palm reading with our psychology. NOT IN OUR SCHOOLS, at least.

What doesn't add up? Rocks to humans? Monkeys giving birth to human babies? The earth being so old, because of the helium in the atmosphere or the salt in the oceans? I would suggest that you give evolution a second chance. I would suggest you browse the FAQs and look at the "Must Read Files" on this website. If these are too technical for you, look at my page for lay people: The Evolution Education Resource Center. How can you know it's false if you can't accurately describe how it works?

Believe in a creator if you wish. You don't have to stop believing in a creator to accept the findings of modern science. Many religious people have no problem with keeping their faith and keeping their intellectual integrity at the same time.

Evolution is indeed a fact. And a theory.

The claim that "Evolution is just a theory" is such a common misconception about evolution that it deserves a detailed rebuttal. This comment is born out of misuse of the word theory. People who make statements like: "But it's only a theory; it's not a scientific law," or "It's a theory, not a fact," don't really know the meanings of the words their using.

Theory does not mean guess, or hunch, or hypothesis. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always be a theory, a law will always be a law. A theory will never become a law, and a law never was a theory.

The following definitions, based on information from the National Academy of Sciences, should help anyone understand why evolution is not "just a theory."

A scientific law is a description of an observed phenomenon. Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion are a good example. Those laws describe the motions of planets. But they do not explain why they are that way. If all scientists ever did was to formulate scientific laws, then the universe would be very well-described, but still unexplained and very mysterious.

A theory is a scientific explanation of an observed phenomenon. Unlike laws, theories actually explain why things are the way they are. Theories are what science is for. If, then, a theory is a scientific explanation of a natural phenomena, ask yourself this: "What part of that definition excludes a theory from being a fact?" The answer is nothing! There is no reason a theory cannot be an actual fact as well.

For example, there is the phenomenon of gravity, which you can feel. It is a fact that you can feel it, and that bodies caught in a gravitational field will fall towards the center. Then there is the theory of gravity, which explains the phenomenon of gravity, based on observation, physical evidence and experiment. Albert Einstein's General Theory of Relativity replaced the less accurate gravity theory of Sir Isaac Newton, which was the first complete mathematical theory formulated which described a fundamental force.

There is the modern theory of evolution, neo-darwinism. It is a synthesis of many scientific fields (biology, population genetics, paleontology, embryology, geology, zoology, microbiology, botany, and more). It replaces darwinism, which replaced lamarckism, which replaced the hypotheses of Erasmus Darwin (Charles' grandfather), which expanded the ideas of Georges de Buffon, which in turn expanded upon the classification of Karl von Linne. (see also: Darwin's Precursors and Influences)

So there is the theory of evolution. Then there is the FACT of evolution. Species change-- there is variation within one kind of animal. There is a predictable range of genetic variation in a species, as well as an expected rate of random mutations. Creationists readily admit that a "kind" (an ambiguous, non-scientific term) can develop into different species (i.e. a dog "kind" can evolve into wolves, coyotes, foxes, and all types of domestic dogs) but they insist that it must stop there. They never give any reason for this fabricated limitation-- they just deny that it can happen. They just can't accept macroevolution, because it contradicts the "truth" of their dogma. But in reality, there is no limit to the degree that a species can change. Given enough time, a fish-like species can evolve into a amphibian-like species, an amphibian-like species can evolve into a reptilian-like species, a reptilian-like species can evolve into a mammalian-like species, and an ape-like species can evolve into the modern human species.

The process (simply stated) involves the genetic potential of many different types of individuals within a species, the birth of a great many individual organisms, and the deaths of those individuals whose characteristics are not as well suited to the total environment as other individuals of the same species. The deaths of these less well suited individuals allows for the increased reproduction of the better suited ones, which initiates a shift in the appearance and function of the species. Without limitation. There is more genetic stuff to it than that, but that is basically how it works.

Yes, evolution is a fact, as real as gravity. The fact that all species alive today have descended from a common ancestor can be denied, but not refuted. We know it happens because we can observe it directly in short-lived species, and for longer lived species there is genetic and fossil evidence that is unambiguous. There is no other scientific explanation for the diversity of living species. Evolution is a very well established scientific concept with a massive amount of physical evidence for support. It is not a guess. Evolution is the basis of modern biology, and universities and laboratories across the world are engaged in research that explores evolution.

You don't have to 'believe' in evolution. You can trust that the thousands of scientists who study this phenomenon aren't morons, or Satanists. You can accept the general idea that life propagates with modifications, and those modifications can lead to improved survival, and that as those modifications are passed over time, many modifications can lead to a species that looks very different from its predecessor. Is that so hard to accept?

I have no faith at all in evolution. (I also have no faith in algebra, chemistry or astronomy). Evolution either stands or falls by the strength of the evidence used to substantiate it. Evolutionary biology relies on factual data, physical evidence, molecular experimentation, and it goes hand in hand with geology.

Some people can say "Well, scientists weren't there... they don't know what happened. It's still faith." But that is mere blind objectionism, like an ostrich hiding its head in the sand. There are real reasons behind the science of reconstructing the past. My favorite analogy is forensic science. A man can murder someone (with no witnesses), and scientists can reconstruct the scene with such accuracy as to pinpoint the guilty person-- with such accuracy as to cause that man to receive the death penalty. For example, most Americans are convinced of O.J. Simpson's guilt... even though no one was there to see him do it. The situation with evolution is much the same-- reconstructing the past through examination of the evidence. It's true that not every theory withstands the test of time and goes on to be considered a fact by nearly all of the scientific community, but evolution is one that has.

See also: Evolution is a Fact and a Theory.

This is the statement from the National Academy of Science:

Is Evolution a fact or a theory? The theory of evolution explains how life on earth has changed. In scientific terms, "theory" does not mean "guess" or "hunch" as it does in everyday usage. Scientific theories are explanations of natural phenomena built up logically from testable observations and hypotheses. Biological evolution is the best scientific explanation we have for the enormous range of observations about the living world. Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is a fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence supporting the idea is so strong. Why isn't evolution called a law? Laws are generalizations that describe phenomena, whereas theories explain phenomena. For example, the laws of thermodynamics describe what will happen under certain circumstances; thermodynamics theories explain why these events occur. Laws, like facts and theories, can change with better data. But theories do not develop into laws with the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the goal of science.

To say that evolution is a religion is grossly wrong, and simply ignorant. You claim that evolutionists "believe" in it because they don't want to answer to a higher power. This false and ignorant claim ignores the fact that the vast majority of evolutionists are not atheists. In addition, it is false that all humans can be traced back to one male and one female.

Let's keep evolution right where it belongs, thank you.

You did say something stunningly right: "a system of inquiry into understanding nature cannot make an appeal to supernatural events as a means of explanation." I couldn't have said it better. As far as your next statement, however, I would say that belief or disbelief are states of mind that are applied to questionable or unsubstantiated claims. Aren't they?

And Gish's statement is a perfect example of why creation "science" isn't science at all. He says so himself. Therefore, it shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a public school science classroom.

What you are advocating there is a particularly malicious theology, were a vindictive creator sets up an appearance of reality for the sole purpose of ensnaring honest scientists in search of truth. Way to go, there.

I sometimes refer to Biblical Errancy websites to illustrate the fact that the bible is not infallable. I feel it is fair and necessary to do so. I am aware that a few of the sites in question do have faulty information, and when I find such errors, I contact the site owners to have it rectified. I suggest you do the same.

As for financial contributions, Brett Vickers, the Archive maintainer, has indicated that they are best given to a worthy organization, such as the National Center for Science Education.

We do not know what caused the big bang to happen, but we do not need to know what causes something (anything) to happen in order to know that it has in fact happened, so the criticism is weak. Do we know that the big bang in fact happened? No, we don't know that either, but it is a strong theory well supported by the evidence and I see no reason to abandon the idea in the face of a fairly flimsy criticism.

Dinosaur footprints with human footprints, the sun too close to the earth, carbon 14 dating, out of order fossils, Noah's Ark... you left out a few of their whoppers. For the real answers to these creationist falsehoods and fabrications, go to Frequently Encountered Criticisms in Evolution vs. Creationism, or The General Anti-Creationism FAQ , or use the Talk Origin Archive's search feature at the bottom of the screen.

As for believing in a creator, some of us do, some of us don't.

Scientific theories do not transform into facts. Scientific theories are verified models used to explain facts. See the Evolution is a Fact and a Theory FAQ.

Pascal's wager is itself considered heretical.

Evidence exists. Enough evidence exists to show that the claims made by young-earth creationists are false. Enough evidence exists that even YEC anti-evolutionists admit that "microevolution" occurs, by which they typically mean all sub-specific change and even change at the species level is well-evidenced.

Belief in God need not be compromised by acceptance of the scientific data and theories concerning biological change. Millions of Christians are readily able to accept what science has learned about biology.

Wesley

We have to go outside that restricted data set in order to understand its long-term behavior, and that's where the observation of reversals of the Earth's magnetic field become important. We know that the sun's magnetic field reverses polarity on a regular basis (with a period of roughly 22 years), so it should not be so amazing that the Earth's geological record shows that the Earth's magnetic field behaves likewise, but not with so regular a periodicity. That record suggests that the Earth's magnetic field will decay for some time, and then reconstruct itself (and suggests that this has happened numerous times in the past). There is no evidence outside of that presented by Barnes that the Earth's magnetic field is in long-term exponential decay, and his evidence is weak at best.

A certain convocation of politic worms are e'en at him.
Your worm is your only emperor for diet.
We fat all creatures else to fat us, and we fat ourselves for maggots.
Your fat king and your lean beggar is but variable service--two dishes, but to one table.

-- William Shakespeare, Hamlet IV.iii 19-24.

I wonder why you think evolutionists are someday going to be arrested? Also, not all evolutionists are "anti-religious", as you claim. In fact, about 80 percent of evolutionists are Christians.

Evolution is not an attempt to rob people of anything. It is an effort to understand the world by the best possible means: science. It is picking apart the natural world to see how it works-- to understand how we got here. If the results of this inquiring are contrary to your traditional beliefs, you have the right to ignore the results. You may also believe the earth is flat, if you wish. But you might also try to incorporate the findings of science within your beliefs, as many honest religious people have done.

At least, to the credit of Native Americans, they have not tried to insist that their beliefs about the origin of humanity be taught in public school science class, as the Christian creationists have done in the past. That would of course be a violation of the principle of separation of church and state, embodied in the first amendment of our constitution. It would also really tick off creationist Christians if Native American creationism was taught alongside theirs, wouldn't it?